Project Management Central
|
Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Eduard,
Ah, Elon Musk and his knack for setting those super aggressive deadlines – it's something, right? It always gets me thinking about how we handle deadlines in our own projects. Setting deadlines earlier than needed as a buffer for delays is an interesting tactic, kind of like a sneaky trick up your sleeve. But here's the thing – it's not just about tricking the calendar. You’ve got to think about how your team will take it. If they're always racing against these tight deadlines, it might get their adrenaline going or wear them down. It's like walking a tightrope – you want to keep things challenging but not so much that your team starts feeling burnt out. Understanding how your team ticks is super important here. Some folks get a kick out of crunch time when they do their best work. But others might crumble. It's like knowing whether your team is a bunch of sprinters or marathon runners. Being upfront about why you're setting these earlier deadlines can help a lot. If your team knows it's a strategy to build in some buffer time, they might be more on board. Nobody likes feeling like they're just being pushed for the sake of it. Of course, what you're working on makes a difference too. If you're dealing with a project with more twists and turns than a mystery novel, having that extra wiggle room is a lifesaver. But if it's more straightforward, maybe you don't need to be quite so aggressive with the schedule. And hey, it's always good to keep an eye on things and be ready to switch gears if needed. If you find that setting earlier deadlines is causing more headaches than it's solving, it might be time to try something different. So, what’s your take on this? Does setting earlier deadlines sound like something that could work for your projects, or do you reckon a different approach would be better? It's all about finding what works best for your team and the projects you've got on your plate. BR, Markus 
Eduard -
Centralizing contingency into buffers leading up to a milestone avoids the padding of individual activities which leads to Parkinson's Law coming into effect. However, you have to ensure that the powers that be don't reduce or strip out those buffers otherwise team members will continue to pad their effort estimates. Kiron 
Rami Kaibni
 Community Champion
Eduard, I normally do set deadlines for teams a week or two earlier to account for potential risks of delay which could happen for so many reasons due to the nature of the construction industry.
Abolfazl Yousefi Darestani
Manager, Quality and Continuous Improvement| Hörmann-TNR Industrial Doors
Newmarket, Ontario, Canada
I agree with Rami. Doing the same thing.
Your teams will know the difference between a real deadline with contingency built in (good), and a fake deadline set to make them work harder/faster (bad). Experienced teams know the difference between because they know how to estimate workloads, development times, and understand the need to buffers between phases. Setting artificial deadlines is like setting your watch 15 minutes ahead so you'll be on time for church, you know the watch is wrong, so you ignore it, and still show up late.
Keith Novak
Tukwila, Wa, USA
It depends on your strategic priorities.
If you set very aggressive deadlines, you have a strong risk that you will encounter delays and miss a major milestone like delivery. While you may miss the date, you may still deliver faster than with a more conservative schedule. Many customers however would rather have a dependable delivery date since their own business is planned around that. ASAP is not as important as when expected.br type="_moz" |
|||
Please login or join to reply
|
"I don't know anything about music. In my line you don't have to." - Elvis Presley |
